For three weeks, Seattle<\/a> officials allowed hundreds of protesters to take over a six-block area of Capitol Hill that included Cal Anderson Park, but Shella Sadovnik<\/a> still isn\u2019t allowed to take her child to the local playground.<\/p>\n \u201cApparently, my toddler is much more dangerous [than protesters],\u201d said Ms. Sadovnik<\/a>, a Seattle<\/a>-based lawyer for the Freedom Foundation<\/a>. \u201cI guess all the law-abiding people have to be subject to all these restrictions, but if you\u2019re protesting and looting and rioting, that\u2019s OK, you don\u2019t spread coronavirus.\u201d<\/p>\n The mass protests after George Floyd\u2019s death at the hands of Minneapolis police have largely faded, but nobody\u2019s forgotten how scores of mostly liberal governors and local officials cheered and even marched alongside demonstrators, often in defiance of social-distancing rules designed to slow the spread of the pandemic.<\/p>\n The result has been simmering public skepticism, particularly on the right, over the necessity of the lockdowns and other restrictions, or what Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA\u2019s Geffen School of Medicine, called the \u201cthe coronavirus credibility gap.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c[P]olitical leaders and health officials have sown distrust by politicizing the pandemic response,\u201d Dr. Ladapo said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed<\/a>. \u201cPolitical leaders and health officials have often invoked \u2018science\u2019 to justify decisions manifestly guided by their personal preferences. That costs them credibility.\u201d<\/p>\n Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market advocacy group American Commitment, pointed to the rapid-fire shift in focus by politicians and public health authorities from COVID-19 to the George Floyd protests and then back to COVID-19.<\/p>\n \u201cThe same supposed so-called experts who tried every scare tactic in the world to say that if you take a step outside, you\u2019re going to kill everybody\u2019s grandparents, and all of these draconian restrictions are necessary \u2014 they then went and literally participated in protest events with massive, massive crowds of thousands of people,\u201d Mr. Kerpen said.<\/p>\n Governors of states with some of the tightest restrictions, including Democrats Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, joined the protests in early June, wearing masks but not always social distancing, as shown in photos.<\/p>\n \u201cWith little social distancing, Whitmer marches with protesters,\u201d said a June 4\u00a0headline<\/a> in the Detroit News.<\/p>\n Democrats have swung back by citing the First Amendment rights of Black Lives Matter demonstrators and stressing the importance of the issues behind the protests spurred by Floyd\u2019s May 25 death in Minneapolis police custody.<\/p>\n So did more than 1,200 public health experts, doctors and activists in a May 30 letter urging authorities to support the protests, saying that \u201c[w]hite supremacy is a lethal public health issue.\u201d<\/p>\n The letter also condemned the earlier anti-lockdown rallies by \u201cpredominantly white protesters\u201d in Lansing, Michigan, saying that experts \u201cmust be clear and consistent in prioritizing an anti-racist message.\u201d<\/p>\n Many of the peaceful protesters could be seen wearing masks, as did the not-so-peaceful rioters, some of whom were affiliated with antifa, whose activists routinely cover their faces to avoid being identified.<\/p>\n Mr. Kerpen wasn\u2019t convinced. \u201cThey defended it on the basis that their political objections were more important than the public health claims they had been making about everyone else just moments before,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd then when that story fizzled and was no longer on the front page, they went right back to the same draconian demands, as if it hadn\u2019t even happened.\u201d The alleged double-standard has emerged as an issue in litigation. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brought up Nevada Gov. Steve\u2019s Sisolak\u2019s participation in a June 19 Black Lives Matter protest in a challenge to the Democrat\u2019s reopening order on churches.<\/p>\n Under the order, churches cannot hold services with more than 50 attendees even though restaurants, casinos and theme parks have been allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, which the ADF described as a disparate treatment.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat\u2019s funny about all this is that we have a First Amendment right under the free-exercise clause to practice our religion in churches,\u201d said ADF senior counsel John Bursch. \u201cThe Constitution does not protect your right to gamble at a casino, to eat at a restaurant, to frolic at a theme park, and yet those are the activities that are being given preferential treatment under the governor\u2019s order.\u201d<\/p>\n A federal judge in Las Vegas rejected the request for an injunction, noting in a June 23 ruling that the state gambling authority had imposed even stricter rules on casinos by requiring gamblers to wear masks, undercutting the church\u2019s \u201cselective enforcement\u201d argument.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s requested relief would require the court to engage in potentially daily or weekly decisions about public health measures that have traditionally been left to state officials and state agencies with expertise in this area,\u201d U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware II said.<\/p>\n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling, prompting the ADF to file Wednesday an emergency application with the Supreme Court on behalf of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, which pointed to the governor\u2019s attendance at an \u201cunlawful protest\u201d in Carson City.<\/p>\n \u201cThe governor has not only allowed but participated in protest marches in recent days where thousands of people were getting together in close proximity without distancing, without masks, and he didn\u2019t seem to have any problem with that, either,\u201d said Mr. Bursch. \u201cYou put all that together, and it certainly does start to feel like churches are being intentionally singled out for mistreatment.\u201d<\/p>\n A\u00a0photo<\/a> of the rally showed the governor wore a face mask, although others at the protest did not.<\/p>\n \u201cI think these are peaceful folks who are just speaking their mind,\u201d Mr. Sisolak said in the CarsonNow. \u201cThis is important to them. It\u2019s encouraging to see the young generation participating so I\u2019m thrilled to come and say hi to them.\u201d<\/p>\n In Washington, Ms. Sadovnik<\/a> said her organization, the Freedom Foundation<\/a>, has been working overtime to represent businesses and individuals challenging the state\u2019s restrictions.<\/p>\n The foundationn filed a lawsuit against Washington Gov. Jay Inslee\u2019s \u201cno mask, no service\u201d order on Tuesday, the same day the mandate went into effect, arguing that the state is \u201cessentially compelling [residents] to support junk science in violation of their freedom of conscience.\u201d<\/p>\n The\u00a0lawsuit<\/a> cited a May 21 study in the New England Journal of Medicine that said wearing cloth masks outside a health-care facility \u201coffers little, if any, protection from infection,\u201d while the Democratic governor argued that the mandate would protect public health.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is something that can save lives,\u201d Mr. Inslee said. \u201cThere is nothing in the constitution that says people should die of a virus. It\u2019s just not there. And anybody can file a lawsuit, but so far courts have upheld.\u201d<\/p>\n Aaron Withe, national director of the Freedom Foundation<\/a>, said the order was particularly galling given Mr. Inslee\u2019s treatment of protesters and rioters.<\/p>\n \u201cThe face-covering directive is the definition of government overreach,\u201d said Mr. Withe. \u201cIf people choose to wear a mask, that\u2019s their choice. But Inslee is going after otherwise law-abiding citizens when there are rioters destroying Washington cities such as Seattle<\/a> with no punishment in sight.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2981 This article is based in part on wire service reports.<\/em><\/p>\n
<\/br>\u2018Preferential treatment\u2019<\/p>\n